So...how were things "created"?

[Scotracer]

Since there's a certain sector of religious faith that believes everything was "created" rather than forming over billions of years due to natural processes, I feel the need to pose a question:

How were these things created?

Science is used to increase the sum of knowledge of mankind. Simply stating something was created doesn't really help, does it? So, please tell me and everyone else just how these things were created.

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

If evolution were true, why do people exist today that thrive on sacrificing their lives in such a way that no offspring are produced?

Instinct, the tribe always has a better chance of survival than the selfish individual. It works the same with love, two mated individuals looking out for each other always have a better chance of having surviving young than a mother on her own.

Does evolution account for why most humans enjoy the azure blue sky?

Yes. A dark and threatening sky means hardship, storms, cold and possible death, so humans are evolutionarily predisposed to enjoy blue sky more. It's really very, very simple, it amazes me that there are those who would deny such simple truths.

If a person were sickened by a peacocks beautiful tail feathers, I would doubt that persons mental health. Seriously, wouldn't you suspect that something was seriously wrong? Surely this man's system for interpreting his existence, environment, and development would be upside down.

If you read more of Darwin's words beyond the snipets and quote mined phrases taken completely out of context, you might learn something about what he was talking about. I would consider any religious person who claims to be moral, but who uses such dishonesty and deceit in their arguments much more upside down.

Wouldn't Darwin feel sicker if he found out that female peacocks weren't impressed by male feathers? His entire theory would fall flat.

Grasping at very tiny straws, aren't you? No, it would not cause any thoughtful person to abandon knowledge to find that they MAY not understand small details as well as they thought. Besides there are major problems with this conclusion.


"In fact, Takahashi and her team found little train variance among males in the population they studied."

I guess since there was little difference in the feather displays the females chose using different criteria.

"Since male peacocks appear to shiver in response to female run-arounds, the scientists think that male mating calls, which consist of multiple notes and sound very different than the noises females make, could affect mating success. The trains, on the other hand, may just be obsolete signals at this point, they suggest.

Louise Barrett, a member of the Faculty of Science and Technology at the University of Central Lancashire in Preston, U.K., thinks the reason for their obsolescence could be that, unlike many other elaborate traits in birds and animals, peacock trains are dictated by the female hormone estrogen, rather than testosterone.

Barrett said that "it is the absence of estrogen in the male that produces the train, rather than the presence of testosterone."

"Traits under the control of estrogen are usually very poor indicators of phenotypic (visible physical attributes) and genotypic (DNA) condition," she explained. "Accordingly, females are known to disregard estrogen-dependent male plumage cues when choosing mates."

Barrett, however, mentioned that this theory, along with the rest of the new findings, is bound to be controversial, since other researchers have presented data suggesting that a peacock's train does influence whether or not a female will choose to mate with him.

"Tests between the two alternate hypotheses now on offer leave students of sexual selection with plenty of work to do," Barrett concluded."

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing to base your argument on. If you had bothered to actually read and understand the whole article you would have saved yourself yet more embarrasment. You aren't too good at this whole science thing, bad preaching seems to be all you know how to do, maybe you should stick with that.

Grumpy

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning

You aren't too good at this whole science thing, bad preaching seems to be all you know how to do, maybe you should stick with that.

Refrain from making disparaging comments about other debaters. Keep it civil and on-topic.

When the moderators feel the rules have been violated, a notice will frequently occur within the thread where the violation occurred, pointing out the violation and perhaps providing other moderator comments. Moderator warnings and comments are made publicly, within the thread, so that all members may see when and how the rules are being interpreted and enforced. However, note that any challenges or replies to moderator comments or warnings should be made via Private Message. This is so that threads do not get derailed into discussions about the rules.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 3 Post 28:

To give your example even more impetus, why don't we ask, "Why did Israel's greatest earthly leader have one of his best generals killed so that he could take his wife and mate with her to produce Solomon?"

Has this been established as fact? Even if so, we can see yet one more person who flips their lid over the prettiest girl in the room.

We would be able to see the physiologiacal changes occurring as them two carried on.

I contest that your miserable "survival" story is not only unnecessary but it is to be avoided. David's first illegitimate child by Bathsheba died.

Has this been established as fact?

When a man kills someone to elevate his personal status, he usually becomes less viable and fails to produce offspring as he sits in prison.

Only in relatively recent times has this been the case. Also there's plenty who commit such horrors expecting to completely get away.

If evolution were true, why do people exist today that thrive on sacrificing their lives in such a way that no offspring are produced? Altruism is a huge problem for evolution theory despite attempts to argue it away.

Not if they have offspring before their sacrifice.

How is an argument against evolution and argument for creation?

A different but important question to ask is why would such a despicable act be recorded about King David if those who supposedly "fabricated" the Bible did so in order to make it appealing?

Folks love tales. Look at how successful Hollywood has become.

Man has a hereditary disease which affects all persons worse than the Bubonic plague. Every man is born with it: SIN. Bubonic plague was traced to Egypt but SIN was traced to Adam.

On what chromosome/gene/etc does sin reside?

When comparing sin to entropy, the argument about whether or not we live in a closed system ceases. Sin always results in death without any exceptions.

Post hoc ergo procter hoc.

We all die, saying it's because of sin can't be shown to be true.

If that be the case, then not only rationale thinking is a hereditary trait but so are answers.

Answers (correct ones anyway) are generally the product of rational thinking, not so much a product of human physiology.

Why is it that people don't seem capable of receiving an answer?

Religious indoctrination?

The verses below pertain to Jesus relationship with the Jews, but the same applies to the whole human race:

More biblical claims with no means of verification.

Does evolution account for why most humans enjoy the azure blue sky?

I propose it offers a certain relief agains viewing storm clouds.

People who hated blue were miserable all the time and females weren't attracted to miserable people so they were sexually selected out.

Could be. We can never be certain about some aspects of evolution, but I'd offer my position directly above as more reasonable and logical.

For me, the universe is "personal" because I'm allowed to choose which features give me the greatest pleasure.

Lucky you. For me, I tend to "like what I like" and don't have a great deal of say. Watch a pretty girl walk into the room, and notice how my heartrate increases, the palms go to sweating, and my tongue goes to tying.

I see "Nature" as an expression of God's handiwork.

Though you've yet to show this to be the case.

If a person were sickened by a peacock's beautiful tail feathers, I would doubt that person's mental health. Seriously, wouldn't you suspect that something was seriously wrong? Surely this man's system for interpreting his existence, environment, and development would be upside down.

Gotta go with you here. I keep a pair to help cut down on the critters. Fascinating animals.

The peacock's overly-extravagant plumage would hinder its survivability. (reduced maneuverability, unable to fly, more conspicuous to predators, harder to maintain, more energy for growth). Darwin's solution to this dilemna was that beautiful feathers attracted mates (i.e. sexual selection). Wouldn't Darwin feel sicker if he found out that female peacocks weren't impressed by male feathers? His entire theory would fall flat. Click here for the news.

For Indian peafowl, which the researchers studied, male vocalizations appear to do a better job of grabbing the attention of females than their visually screaming "attire."

"We have the idea that peacock calls most influence peahens (female peacocks)," lead author Mariko Takahashi told Discovery News.

Pluck one clean and see how he fares in the mating game.

[Ankhhape]

Since there's a certain sector of religious faith that believes everything was "created" rather than forming over billions of years due to natural processes, I feel the need to pose a question:

How were these things created?

Science is used to increase the sum of knowledge of mankind. Simply stating something was created doesn't really help, does it? So, please tell me and everyone else just how these things were created.

I know I am joining rather late in the game here and I haven't read through 'all' of the posts but I feel the need to put out my belief on this subject.


"Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates."-The Kybalion.

Spirit is at one end of the Pole of Vibration, the other Pole being certain extremely gross forms of Matter. Between these two poles are millions upon millions of different rates and modes of vibration.

Modern Science has proven that all which we call Matter and Energy are but "modes of vibratory motion," and some of the more advanced scientists are rapidly moving toward the positions of the Occultists who hold that the phenomena of the Mind/Consciousness is likewise as modes of vibration or motion.

From the onset of the Big Bang came forth a Primordial Vibration and a soup of chaos and unbalances. By way of this vibration order was set from chaos.
Out of this all things were created within our Universe from the Physical to the Metaphysical to the Spiritual. The first guiding force created was a primeval consciousness, the Egyptians called this Amon.

This process of creation through vibration has been called the Word in the Judeo-Christian Bible, Hindu Scriptures call it Naad and Shruti, Persian scriptures Sraosha, Kalma in Muslim scriptures, the Sonorous Light' in Buddhism, Naam or Shabd by the Sikhs, in Patanjali Yoga Darshan, the God/dess Ishwara is a Being expressed by this original vibration (Pranav) and Madam Helen Blavatsky and the Theosophists call it the Voice of Silence'.

It is interesting to note the similarities between the above word Pranav' in this case denoting the personification of the Primordial Vibration and the word prana' which is the life force within us.

[Ami]

Does evolution account for why most humans enjoy the azure blue sky?

I propose it offers a certain relief agains viewing storm clouds.

Maybe, mabe not. I propose that upbringing or location accounts for it. I for one do not enjoy a blue sky, as it means a scorching sun, me getting sweaty. I much prefer a grey cloudy day, it's more relaxing and relieving against the heat. Plus if it rains you get water, which we all need.

Depends where you live though. Since the UK, for example, tends to be wet most of the year, I'd expect it's locals to enjoy blue cloudless days since they don't get them often. Likewise I'd also expect someone who lived in the desert to be happy to see so much as a spot of rain.

Alan Clarke wrote:

People who hated blue were miserable all the time and females weren't attracted to miserable people so they were sexually selected out.

I prefer cloudy days, it does not mean I do not like the colour blue.

If a person were sickened by a peacocks beautiful tail feathers, I would doubt that persons mental health. Seriously, wouldn't you suspect that something was seriously wrong? Surely this man's system for interpreting his existence, environment, and development would be upside down.

I do not doubt a person's mental health simply because they're bothered by a bunch of feathers.

A lot of people get bothered by different things, and while it may or may not be considered a weakness, it doesn't indicate that they are mentally unhealthy enough to not believe the factuality of their statements. Otherwise whatever meager fear or discomfort you might have over whatever object may indicate you are an untrustworthy person to get facts from.

I'd rather it be a big giant hooter. I got my old lady to help count the monthly - ahem - periods.

LOL

Edit;

Pretty much so. One of God's magic phrases was "Let there be light" and there was light. He is somehow able to generate things from nothing. He just waved his magic wand.

It is possible for things to begin existing from nothingess. Matter and anti-matter is known to pop into existence and detroy each other the next instant. I forget if this is localised to the vicinity of a black hole or not, though.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 4 Post 35:

Does evolution account for why most humans enjoy the azure blue sky?

I propose it offers a certain relief against viewing storm clouds.

Maybe, mabe not. I propose that upbringing or location accounts for it. I for one do not enjoy a blue sky, as it means a scorching sun, me getting sweaty. I much prefer a grey cloudy day, it's more relaxing and relieving against the heat. Plus if it rains you get water, which we all need.

Plenty, plenty fair. I made sure to "propose" a response of how it may be to an evolutionary advantage. My attempt was to offer a reasonable and logical answer to the question.

Depends where you live though. Since the UK, for example, tends to be wet most of the year, I'd expect it's locals to enjoy blue cloudless days since they don't get them often. Likewise I'd also expect someone who lived in the desert to be happy to see so much as a spot of rain.

And we see many from the "Old Countries" settled in the US in very similar geographic/weather patterned locations when coming to the New World.

We tend to get comfortable with certain patterns, and the idea of blue skies, as a pattern, as comfort can be reasonably assumed to be a product of who we are, rather than some divine being.

I would dare say you'd be more comfortable in surroundings you consider familiar.

[Alan Clarke]

THE LAW OF SIN & DEATH

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Alan Clarke wrote: SIN was traced to Adam.

How does that work? It has been shown that the idea that acquired traits are inheritable (Lamarkism [sic]) is false. How could we inherit the sinfulness of our ancestors?

There is a mechanism in the human body that you are overlooking which carries this inheritable disease. How are you missing it? Perhaps you are familiar with the complexity of modeling air turbulence. The number of variables can be so great, that even a supercomputer struggles. When you hear the sound of wind, do you know exactly where that particular gust of wind was birthed? This is an example of having one sense that detects the phenomena, but your other abilities fail to locate its origin. By the same token, you know that you were born from your mother, but you dont know your ULTIMATE origin. You know your ultimate destination (death), but you dont know now nor will know then, the exact cause for it. Ive seen people try to articulate the cause at various stages of the decline leading to death, but the interpretations are so varied that many doubt the accuracy or absoluteness of those interpretations. In order for you to determine this, something about you will have to be transformed. You really shouldnt be surprised at this idea because the Earth is full of people extremely desirous of knowing their origin and destination, but many such as yourself have not the faintest idea. Aristotle believed that aphids arose from plant dew, fleas came from decaying matter, mice arose from dirty hay, and crocodiles were from rotting sunken logs. (Wikipedia) Today scientists laugh at these absurdities because they know in actuality mice would have arisen from dirty hay if Aristotle had only waited longer. 2 billion years should do the trick according to the evolutionists timeline.

Time required to validate theory
Spontaneous generation (2 weeks - 1 year)
Mendelian Genetics (7 years) *
Evolution (1 M - 3 B years)

Can you determine which of the above theories would be hard to falsify? Can you understand why the internet is flaming with angry people, including university-trained scientists, who were told that they dont understand how evolution works? The understanding of how it works is not science but a human materialistic philosophy. Insisting that evolution CAN be observed is weak because many changes in a species can be accounted for by mechanisms that already exist in the organisms that allow for variation. It is conceivable that a single pair of genetically-rich cats on Noahs ark could account for all modern-day cats if you allow for natural selection and mutations to REDUCE information to achieve ocelots and the like. I am not a geneticist but I suggest this so you can study the possibility on your own. Why should we call a lion and a tiger two different species if they can interbreed to produce offspring?

Alan Clarke wrote: Sin always results in death without any exceptions.

This is the science forum. Do you have any science to support this assertion?

Website name: Debating Christianity & Religion
Forum name: Science & Religion
Thread name: Sohow were things created?

Notice that the thread name is NOT How did natural processes create everything? Do you see the difference? One is a leading question whereas the other is not. When did you stop beating your wife? In America, asking leading questions has become almost inherent since children are taught very early with this technique. It carries on into adulthood as I have illustrated in your situation, where you ASSUMED the answer was already implied, even though I showed you it wasnt printed anywhere. I have empirical evidence that the origin of these ASSUMPTIONS are passed on at an early age before a child has the ability to critically think for himself. Here is a question from a childrens science magazine called Ask: Which living animal is most like a T. rex: a crocodile, a komodo dragon, or a chicken? (source)

McCulloch, I can really empathize with your position but I think we should review where you are:
1) You dont know where you came from.
2) You dont know how your journeys end will be transacted.
3) You may not know at present where you are going with respect to tomorrow or next year.
4) You dont know where you are now as evidenced by this forum thread that you falsely ASSUMED was limited to natural causes.

Being in a bad position is not all that BAD if you can get out of it. Im speaking from experience since at one time, I mirrored every single one of the above conditions.

Do you have any science to support this assertion? [i.e. SIN causes death]

I would like to address this using something you are familiar with and can appreciate: Evolution theory. Evolution theory stipulates change over time. These changes are so small and extended over such vast periods of time that much controversy has been generated as to whether evolution is happening at all. But since you think it is, lets apply that principle to small increments of what I will call Sin. The term is often ambiguously construed, but so is "evolution" : (i.e. chemical , cosmologic, Darwinian, sociocultural, etc.), so you should feel quite at home. What they all have in common however is change over time. Would you agree in general terms that sin is doing something morally wrong? In order to remove the disambiguation created by controversial situational ethics, would you agree that it is sinful for one to rape a 2-year old girl, then kill and dispose of her body in a lake? Hopefully Im appealing to your rational mind, and hopefully you will agree that even thinking about how one might succeed in carrying out that act should be construed as a sinful action. Thus the idea of sinful thoughts becomes a reality. If we apply the change over time principle to the disambiguated idea of sin, we should be able to empirically derive whether sin is a cause of death. If a man robs a bank and is imprisoned, will not his chances for earning income, marrying and producing children, buying toiletries to care for his body, eating healthy food, developing friends, etc. be lessened? Will not the reduction of friends, money, bodily care, and opportunity reduce longevity? If a person is a glutton and is forced to eat healthier food in prison, would this be a viable argument for saying that sin increases longevity especially when you consider that your new friends will be criminals? Can a society prosper if the population willingly imprisons itself so as to eliminate gluttony while a minority of non-imprisoned citizens supports the prison through tax revenues? If a man commits adultery with another mans wife, will not the avenging husband reduce the probability of increased longevity for the one who sinned? Can you think of any instance where sin is not going to reduce longevity? Keep in mind that you must work with the idea of an open system as I did in my gluttony analogy where people on the outside were negatively affected by the tax burden. Im sure you are comfortable with this stipulation since evolutionists themselves plead for an open system. If a man has a habit of telling white lies to his spouse, wont those seemingly insignificant lies accumulate over time and reduce his spouses trust? Isnt lack of trust a common cause for divorce? One might argue that lawyers benefit from divorce but isnt their gain diminished by those who are ill-affected? Doesnt divorce deplete life savings, increase stress, and turn children into less-functional members of society? Doesnt all of this decrease longevity and support my original argument of the universal consequences of sin? If sins consequences are known to be universal, inescapable, non-changing, and unforgiving, what about the universality of the cause? Does anyone not sin? If we could locate a person with any of the following attributes, that would weaken considerably my claim that sin always results in death. Even if you were to locate an innocent child who had no opportunity to sin, that child would die because he INHERITED sin. Therefore, the original cause is still TRACED to sin.

[mrow] Person # [mcol] Commited sin? [mcol] Current state [row] 1 [col] no [col] dead [row] 2 [col] yes [col] > 1000 years old

To my knowledge, no one currently lives more than about 120 years of age, so only Person #1 is left as an option. Do you know anyone who has never sinned? I think you should really latch on to this concept because it is substantiated almost identically as the theory of evolution: homological/morphological inferences support the idea of evolution vs. deterioration of viability supports the idea of sin. Whats nice about sin (pun not intended) is that we can support it with visual evidences showing that death is hastened when a lot of sin is committed in a short period of time.


John Dillinger is not an isolated or anecdotal case.

Americans have been well-informed by their news media (Fox News in this case) of the correlation between sin and death:
Uday & Qusay

For those who argue that isolating the evidence to one or two individuals is not conclusive:
Bugs Moran Gang

For those who argue that children should never die because they are sinless:
Innocent children

The children depicted in the above link illustrates how sin is inherited from the parent. Even though the parents are seemingly healthy and full of smiles (as the photo shows), they are latent carriers and pass the trait to their children. Sin plagues the entire human race without exception.

Fortunately, There Is A Way Out

John 5:28-29 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

But how will people be exempt from damnation if they are born with the inherited sin trait which forces them to sin even against their own will? (example: alcoholics, wife-beaters, porn addicts, grumpy people, etc., all want to stop but they cant)

1Cor 15:56-57 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


* Between 1856 and 1863, Mendell cultivated and tested some 29,000 pea plants.

[Wyvern]

To my knowledge, no one currently lives more than about 120 years of age, so only Person #1 is left as an option. Do you know anyone who has never sinned? I think you should really latch on to this concept because it is substantiated almost identically as the theory of evolution: homological/morphological inferences support the idea of evolution vs. deterioration of viability supports the idea of sin. Whats nice about sin (pun not intended) is that we can support it with visual evidences showing that death is hastened when a lot of sin is committed in a short period of time.

Three of the biggest killers ever lived to be quite old, Stalin lived to be 75, Mao made it to 83 and Pol Pot lived to be 73. Pol Pot in particular committed very many acts which you would call sinful in the space of only a few years.
All of that is beside the point though, you are drawing a false conclusion.

[Alan Clarke]

Stalin lived to be 75, Mao made it to 83 and Pol Pot lived to be 73.

This is just priceless. I stipulated that you must take the whole open system into account. One rich leader siezes the assets of his people and lives sumptously. This is identical to evolutionists arguing that "hot spots" are local areas of organization that defy entropy. The problem is, you have to account for the 99.999% of the remaining people in Pol Pot's regime who suffered miserably and had their heads cut off. So in this case, a guy who is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY sinful, succeeded in bringing down the whole country. Certain denominations of the existing Cambodian paper currency were declared "unlucky" by Pol Pot and weren't to be backed by the govt. The economy hit bottom the same day the decree went out. "Sin" has consequences that are unfathomable. Evolution theory is based on the exact same failed logic of winning at someone else's expense, thinking that such advancements will build a viable organism and/or society.

My argument still stands: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and innocent victims are all dead because of sin. If all of the above had "sinned less", then fewer would have died prematurely. You must look at the whole system just as one would with thermodynamics. Wyvern argued for isolated individuals and lost. What's worse, all of his argument's "heros" are dead.

[Alan Clarke]

"In fact, Takahashi and her team found little train variance among males in the population they studied."

I guess since there was little difference in the feather displays the females chose using different criteria.

I suppose the artwork on the peacocks feathers just couldnt get any better so evolution stopped happening. There is nothing worse than an artist who over-indulges. The only problem here is that evolution is now endowed with artistic taste. I honestly dont think you understand the variables involved in love, hate, art and music appreciation, etc. Even the word variables sounds foolish when I think of the joy my 5 month-old sons face elicits. Does love in your world consist of staring into a face and thinking (curved lip) + (slightly tilted chin) + (furrowed brow) + (messy hair) + etc. + etc. = 18.0389054236 Yes! I love 18.0389054236!!!! But I dont trust 18.00000666. Perhaps you could suggest a model for a program that could predict which of two songs has a better chance of becoming a Top-10 hit by studying wave harmonics. You could buy out Microsoft with the proceeds. Do you realize your evolution stopped explanation allows you to imagine anything you want and thus end up with a theory consisting of imaginations? Sharks just cant get any better either except for that minor problem of them sinking if they stop swimming. * Coelacanths evidently stopped evolving because they too were perfect except for that inconvenience of not being able to walk on land as they had always dreamed. You read two research studies, rejected all data that hurt your theory, and accepted all data that helped your theory. The Japanese research project was 7 years with more birds involved than previous yet they didnt offer what you were looking for. So in the end, it is not science that you believe, but yourself.

Any feedback on planet wobble?

* Unlike other fish, sharks do not have gas-filled swim bladders, but rather rely on an oil-filled liver for (limited) buoyancy, so they sink when they stop swimming.